quote:Originally posted by ricecakes: LETS NOT FORGET OUR RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS. WE HAVE LAUNCHED WITH 5 CARRIERS. 4 SINCE AUGUST.
Launching with 5 carriers may be a accomplishment, but it doesnt mean squat if no one is subscribing to the service. I for one would be announcing my subscription numbers as often as I can to show that there is momentum with QTN. Look at SIRI, they were always announcing their subscription numbers, both current and future. QBID (aka Frank) hasn't release any numbers. So, I can only conclude, at this time,that he doesn't have any good number to release. Which means if he doesn't have any subscribers, then he doesn't have any income, which means he has to dump shares, when he runs out of shares, he lays people off and closes the studios.
The road to hell is not pertty. And I lose over $11K
FRANK IS NOT THE KIND OF PERSON TO JUST QUIT. HE WILL POUND THE PAVEMENT TO GET NEW FINANCING. SUBCRIPTIONS SHOULD BE THE FOCUS NOW. WITH THOSE COMES REVENUE.
IP: Logged |
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Institutional investors who hold about 2 percent of Time Warner's Inc. (NYSE:TWX - news) shares will seek to recover about $3.3 billion in losses from the media company in lawsuits related to its 2001 takeover of America Online, a source familiar with the situation said on Tuesday.
The 100 plaintiffs hold "in excess of 100 million shares," William Lerach, an attorney representing the shareholders, is expected to say in a news conference today, according to the source.
Shareholders, including the Regents of the University of California and the West Virginia Investment Management Board, have all opted out of the class action settlement against the company -- formerly called AOL Time Warner -- according to a statement from Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP.
Lerach is expected to release more information later in the day.
The news comes amid an attack from dissident shareholder Carl Icahn, who plans a proxy war to replace the board of directors and its chief executive and who is expected to reveal plans calling for a breakup of Time Warner
IP: Logged |
posted
And just how do you know what kind of person Frank is?
quote:Originally posted by ricecakes:
quote:Originally posted by manfromjax:
quote:Originally posted by ricecakes: LETS NOT FORGET OUR RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS. WE HAVE LAUNCHED WITH 5 CARRIERS. 4 SINCE AUGUST.
Launching with 5 carriers may be a accomplishment, but it doesnt mean squat if no one is subscribing to the service. I for one would be announcing my subscription numbers as often as I can to show that there is momentum with QTN. Look at SIRI, they were always announcing their subscription numbers, both current and future. QBID (aka Frank) hasn't release any numbers. So, I can only conclude, at this time,that he doesn't have any good number to release. Which means if he doesn't have any subscribers, then he doesn't have any income, which means he has to dump shares, when he runs out of shares, he lays people off and closes the studios.
The road to hell is not pertty. And I lose over $11K
FRANK IS NOT THE KIND OF PERSON TO JUST QUIT. HE WILL POUND THE PAVEMENT TO GET NEW FINANCING. SUBCRIPTIONS SHOULD BE THE FOCUS NOW. WITH THOSE COMES REVENUE.
posted
Over the past few months I have seen posts suggesting that we contact Time/Warner, Cox, Gay Games and any other companies/individual that may currently in a business relationship with Q or may do business with Q in the future and let them know of the downside of Q. As far as I have been able to discern the majority of this downside appears to be based on rumors, dissatisfaction with the pps and the company not meeting our timetable for providing information. (Don't get me wrong, I would like to see the information (audit) as much as all of you). As I and others have mentioned before, it would seem that these large companies that are doing business with Q have done their research to determine that Q is financially stable. My questions: If we attempt to raise questions with these companies about their partnership with Q aren't we "shooting ourselves in the foot"? Aren't we raising their suspicions based on rumors? How many on here really know what is going on with Q? This is a start-up company that has made tremendous inroads into the market. Yes there are things that we as shareholders are not happy with. However, I really don’t believe that airing our issues with companies that Q does business with is going to help the pps or anything else. Vent if you chose to but let's be sure we don’t sabotage the company.
IP: Logged |
posted
Just to throw it out there... i have to look back in my notes.
How many markets was Q required to be in for the Gay Games to honor their contract with Qtv?
I remember there was a conditional number. And the question is has Q fulfilled its obligation?
~BB
quote:Originally posted by DIGDOUGH: Ya, if the sub numbers were any good i'd think they would be mentioned too. What harm would there be in being a popular network?
quote:Originally posted by ricecakes: LETS NOT FORGET OUR RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS. WE HAVE LAUNCHED WITH 5 CARRIERS. 4 SINCE AUGUST.
quote:Originally posted by DIGDOUGH: This is the last queer **** that i'll ever put any money into.
How old are you? Do you actually think sexual preference has anything to do with PPS? If you want to attack a company then you should do it intelligently with specific facts about mananagement and the way they are running the company.
Making statements like the one above only enlighten us as to your ignorance.
-------------------- All men's gains are the fruit of venturing.
quote:Originally posted by betting babe: Just to throw it out there... i have to look back in my notes.
How many markets was Q required to be in for the Gay Games to honor their contract with Qtv?
I remember there was a conditional number. And the question is has Q fulfilled its obligation?
~BB
quote:Originally posted by DIGDOUGH: Ya, if the sub numbers were any good i'd think they would be mentioned too. What harm would there be in being a popular network?
quote:Originally posted by ricecakes: LETS NOT FORGET OUR RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS. WE HAVE LAUNCHED WITH 5 CARRIERS. 4 SINCE AUGUST.
quote:Originally posted by ricecakes: FRANK IS NOT THE KIND OF PERSON TO JUST QUIT. HE WILL POUND THE PAVEMENT TO GET NEW FINANCING. SUBCRIPTIONS SHOULD BE THE FOCUS NOW. WITH THOSE COMES REVENUE.
rice Welcome to allstocks. I've sent you a PM.
-------------------- Everything I say is only my opinion ... right or wrong.
IP: Logged |
posted
You have some valid points, however, this "startup company" has been going on for about 8 years now....remember the GAAY days?
quote:Originally posted by JimS: Over the past few months I have seen posts suggesting that we contact Time/Warner, Cox, Gay Games and any other companies/individual that may currently in a business relationship with Q or may do business with Q in the future and let them know of the downside of Q. As far as I have been able to discern the majority of this downside appears to be based on rumors, dissatisfaction with the pps and the company not meeting our timetable for providing information. (Don't get me wrong, I would like to see the information (audit) as much as all of you). As I and others have mentioned before, it would seem that these large companies that are doing business with Q have done their research to determine that Q is financially stable. My questions: If we attempt to raise questions with these companies about their partnership with Q aren't we "shooting ourselves in the foot"? Aren't we raising their suspicions based on rumors? How many on here really know what is going on with Q? This is a start-up company that has made tremendous inroads into the market. Yes there are things that we as shareholders are not happy with. However, I really don’t believe that airing our issues with companies that Q does business with is going to help the pps or anything else. Vent if you chose to but let's be sure we don’t sabotage the company.
posted
JimS, the fact is the Lions are circling for the Kill...
Because of the nature of the company many people want this company to fail..
Just a "Real World" condition that exsists.
Ya Ya, bash me, but the fact of the matter is people just plain Hate this company, and many of the people associated with it.
Why do you think only a few of us braver folks even post in here..
People don't want to be labled a QBIDDER..jUST THE FACTS OF LIFE. Now come on and BASH away, but I have about had it with this whole stinking situation around here.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JimS: Over the past few months I have seen posts suggesting that we contact Time/Warner, Cox, Gay Games and any other companies/individual that may currently in a business relationship with Q or may do business with Q in the future and let them know of the downside of Q. As far as I have been able to discern the majority of this downside appears to be based on rumors, dissatisfaction with the pps and the company not meeting our timetable for providing information. (Don't get me wrong, I would like to see the information (audit) as much as all of you). As I and others have mentioned before, it would seem that these large companies that are doing business with Q have done their research to determine that Q is financially stable. My questions: If we attempt to raise questions with these companies about their partnership with Q aren't we "shooting ourselves in the foot"? Aren't we raising their suspicions based on rumors? How many on here really know what is going on with Q? This is a start-up company that has made tremendous inroads into the market. Yes there are things that we as shareholders are not happy with. However, I really don’t believe that airing our issues with companies that Q does business with is going to help the pps or anything else. Vent if you chose to but let's be sure we don’t sabotage the company.
JimS, I don't think it was OUR timetable that was the problem...patience doesn't last months on end for release of information that was promised. It becomes a matter of trust. Don't deliver, trust desolves. I also don't think there is much of a foot left to shoot, from an investor perspective. If you are speaking from a management perspective, than you have much more to lose.
-------------------- Just the facts, ma'am.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JimS: Over the past few months I have seen posts suggesting that we contact Time/Warner, Cox, Gay Games and any other companies/individual that may currently in a business relationship with Q or may do business with Q in the future and let them know of the downside of Q. As far as I have been able to discern the majority of this downside appears to be based on rumors, dissatisfaction with the pps and the company not meeting our timetable for providing information. (Don't get me wrong, I would like to see the information (audit) as much as all of you). As I and others have mentioned before, it would seem that these large companies that are doing business with Q have done their research to determine that Q is financially stable. My questions: If we attempt to raise questions with these companies about their partnership with Q aren't we "shooting ourselves in the foot"? Aren't we raising their suspicions based on rumors? How many on here really know what is going on with Q? This is a start-up company that has made tremendous inroads into the market. Yes there are things that we as shareholders are not happy with. However, I really don’t believe that airing our issues with companies that Q does business with is going to help the pps or anything else. Vent if you chose to but let's be sure we don’t sabotage the company.
JimS Excellent points, although I'm afraid it's wasted advice. Too many people are running on emotion and not thinking clearly.
But enough said here ... I'll PM you. Give me a minute.
[ February 07, 2006, 13:48: Message edited by: Bottomliner ]
-------------------- Everything I say is only my opinion ... right or wrong.
IP: Logged |
posted
And... if we really knew what was going on with Q thru info released by the company, investors would not resort to extreme means of finding out. Again, from a management perspective most investor activity is unhealthy but companies should not offer/take investment money if they are unwilling to acknowledge and be accountable to the investor.
-------------------- Just the facts, ma'am.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 4Tune4Me: And... if we really knew what was going on with Q thru info released by the company, investors would not resort to extreme means of finding out. Again, from a management perspective most investor activity is unhealthy but companies should not offer/take investment money if they are unwilling to acknowledge and be accountable to the investor.
Q is required to be in 150 makets according to Frank in order to meet the agreement for the games. I don't know that they fulfilled the obligation yet. If they have they aren't telling.
quote:Originally posted by betting babe: Just to throw it out there... i have to look back in my notes.
How many markets was Q required to be in for the Gay Games to honor their contract with Qtv?
I remember there was a conditional number. And the question is has Q fulfilled its obligation?
~BB
quote:Originally posted by DIGDOUGH: Ya, if the sub numbers were any good i'd think they would be mentioned too. What harm would there be in being a popular network?
quote:Originally posted by ricecakes: LETS NOT FORGET OUR RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS. WE HAVE LAUNCHED WITH 5 CARRIERS. 4 SINCE AUGUST.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
